streams and ground waters || the ecology of hyporheic meiofauna

The Ecology of Hyporheic Meiofauna Christine C. Hakenkamp* and Margare t A. Palmer t ':Department of Biology James Madison University Harrisonburg, Virginia ~Department of Zoology University of Maryland College Park, Maryland

I. Introduction 307 II. Meiofaunal Taxa and Their Relative Abundances in the Hyporheic

Zone 309 Ill. Spatial Distribution and Abundance 316 IV. Meiofauna and the Physical Environment 319 V. Tolerance to Anoxia, Body Size, and Biomass 321

VI. Trophic Roles, Dispersal Dynamics, and Response to Spatial- Temporal Heterogeneity 322

VII. Meiofaunal-Microbial Interactions 324 VIII. Meiofauna and Ecosystem Ecology 325

A. Scenario A: High Interstitial Flow Rates 326 B. Scenario B: Intermediate Interstitial Flow Rates 327 C. Scenario C: Low Interstitial Flow Rates 327

IX. Conclusions and Future Research Needs 328 References 329

I. INTRODUCTION

Meiofauna are sediment-associated organisms intermediate in size between the microbes and macrofauna (Palmer and Strayer, 1996). The term meio is a Greek term for smaller (Mare, 1942) and meiofauna are generally classified as protists and invertebrates between 50 and 1000 t~m (Mare, 1942; although some researchers use a 500-1~m upper size limit; Meyer,

Streams and Ground Waters Copyright �9 2000 by Academic Press. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 307

308 Hakenkamp and Palmer

1990). Invertebrates > 1000 txm would not be included as meiofauna, unless they spend part of their life as smaller interstitial organisms (temporary meiofauna). Meiofauna occur in all aquatic ecosystems (marine to freshwater) and include representatives from two-thirds of the known animal phyla (Coull, 1988). Thus, it should not be surprising that hyporheic meiofauna include a very diverse group of organisms from a wide range of taxa (Table I).

Some species of marine and hyporheic meiofauna share similar characteristics for adapting to interstitial habitats, including small size, wormlike shape, adhesive organs (to hold onto sediment grains), armor (protection from sediment movement), direct fertilization, and lack of free-swimming larvae (Giere, 1993; Palmer and Strayer, 1996). Because meiofauna are de- fined as interstitial organisms and spend most of their lives in the sediments, for the sake of simplicity we will consider all streambed meiofauna as members of the hyporheic community.

There are many advantages to studying meiofauna in both marine and freshwater systems. These include their short generation times, high abundances, intimate association with the sediments (they generally lack a planktonic or aerial stage), quick response to any change in the system, and ease of collection even with small-sized samples (Hummon et al., 1978; Warwick, 1993). They can be ideal experimental organisms (Coull and Palmer, 1984).

Compared to marine meiofauna, much less is generally known about hyporheic meiofauna even though they have been studied in both systems for over 100 years (Coull and Giere, 1988). During the early 1900s, when marine ecologists were first documenting large abundances of these small fauna in marine systems, European stream ecologists also found numerous meiofauna in streams (for a review, see Pennak, 1988). Aquatic ecologists discovered that they were missing many taxa, as well as much of the total biomass, by sampling with sieves of large mesh sizes (i.e., 250 Ixm instead of 50 txm; Hummon, 1981). The study of marine meiofauna quickly entered a period of intense effort and rich discovery, especially when compared to equivalent research in hyporheic systems. There are at least two factors that probably influenced these different rates of research progress. First, many marine meiofaunal taxa also have macrofaunal constituents so that taxonomic expertise was in place quite early for many groups. This was in con- trast to a lack of taxonomic experts on many freshwater meiofauna. Second, there were simply more researchers actively studying marine systems and their fauna. Recently (late 1970s to present), study of stream meiofauna has advanced more rapidly, aided by our vast knowledge of factors influencing marine meiofauna and the technology that marine researchers have developed to study the meiobenthos.

Here we summarize meiofaunal research in stream hyporheic zones. We also include what are generally considered to be the major results from ma-

13. The Ecology o[ Hyporheic Meiofauna 309

rine studies because they are much more extensive (Table II, developed from Coull and Giere, 1988; Giere, 1993) and because this research is quite rele- vant to streams (Palmer, 1990b, 1992). Throughout this chapter, we ask whether questions addressed in marine systems have also been addressed in hyporheic systems. Further, we point out several studies in which streams have been shown to be ideal locations for testing new ideas in meiofaunal research. This chapter is not intended as a complete overview on meiofaunal ecology, and the reader is directed to other literature for more complete reviews (Table III).

II. MEIOFAUNAL TAXA AND THEIR RELATIVE ABUNDANCES IN THE HYPORHEIC ZONE

Hyporheic systems contain extremely large densities of meiofauna which may equal or even exceed those in marine systems (Palmer, 1990a; Borchardt and Bott, 1995). Hyporheic meiofauna are also very taxonomically diverse (see hyporheic references in Table I). For example, more than 145 species of meiofauna occur in Goose Creek, a sandy stream in Northern Virginia (Turn- er and Palmer, 1996; P. Silver, M. Shofner, and J. Reid, personal communi- cation), and over 300 species occur at the Oberer Seebach, a gravel stream in Austria (Schmid-Araya and Schmid, 1995; Schmid and Schmid-Araya, 1997). Even though all hyporheic systems may not be this diverse, small invertebrates obviously contribute greatly to the biodiversity of streams (Palmer et al., 1997).

The number of hyporheic studies using mesh sizes for organism sampling small enough to collect meiofauna has increased considerably. However, comparisons between taxa identified in these studies can be problematic given the large variability in sampling approaches and the range in sampling depths. Organisms such as crustaceans, insects, rotifers, oligochaetes, and nematodes appear to be important components of most hyporheic communities, but considerable differences exist in the percent composition of these taxa in different streams (Table IV). For example, a comparison of meiofauna in sandy versus coarse substrates (e.g., cobble, gravel) indicates that although most taxa occur in both sediment types, coarse sediments often contain more crustaceans and insects, and sandy sediments contain more ro- tilers, nematodes, and tardigrades (Fig. 1). This difference in taxa is perhaps not surprising given that crustaceans and insects tend to occur within the upper size range of meiofauna and might have more difficulty moving through the smaller interstitial spaces of sandy sediments. Another possibility, however, is that the use of different sampling methodologies greatly influenced the taxa collected (e.g., pumping versus hand coring; see also following discussion). Another important point is that even though an impressive amount

%

.£

8 #

t~

.f < ~5

~<

<~

~,~

<

~ -

~-~

o'.,a.,, ~

o ~

~ "~Z

"

~>

'~"

~"~

'~

~a R

oOe

~a ~

o ~

~-

~

.~ ~

-~

~

.=

~

~ o ~

X X

XX

X

XX

X

X X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

0

a8 ~

..~ ~.~

,.~ E

~ ~

~ ~.U

,.-.~ ,..,

¢~ ~

~ -~

,~ o

d [-"

~<~ 0

310

I'--

t,,a .

o

© = ~_,

= 0 .~

.x.c ,"

71~,

X X

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

XX

× X

X X

X X

-X

.; --~

~- 7£~

,"S.

- .-

-~ .=-

~o'-z ~

~ .o ~

~ o ~,.. ~"a

~ 8

~'~ ~

.-~'~

d~

= ~"d

~

e- ..~

©

.~ ~

E.~

~

o ~

~N

g

311

o ~q

° ~

.~

~ ,-

• ~Z

~=

~

• - ~

,~

~g

m

m

o~

~.~ o o_~

~o

o~

~ =

. ~

m

~e4M

o

~._

© o',,

~ ~

o~

o', 'Fa

~- N

o4 r4

.E .~

-~ ~

o 0

~3

r.4 ..~

~,.-; ,-q

4

$ ~

.~ &

'r-, ~

~ .=

-~ E

oo~

o

.~_ ,-

= u

o "*

~'a""J 0

"~ "~

~ ~

~ ~

'~

,-,, .~

@',4.

E, t3

:5

~a u

312

R

-.;, ~

~5- = ~,~

~ .~

'-

~"£: ~52 8,..:.~

~.~ -~

~ ,.-.~

o .~ ~

°~ ~,..i

E~

I m ©

,b_,

.~ C

~" -~ ~ !

~ ~=~=

~'~ ~

~.~ ~

o~ ~

-~

q9

~ ~

- -~

=~

<

. ~,

~.=

- ~

--~ ,-,;

~ 04

~ _~

_ ~

o ~

,- ~

~

~ ~

.-~ .=

o E ,2

L: P'

"~ ~

c e-

~ ~

z

~ .~o.=

~ .

~a

©

L) m

^ m

©

I o eo

E ~8 oo

313


TABLE Ill Meiofaunal Reviews"

Meiofaunal texts Meiofaunal ecology (Giere, 1993) History of meiofauna, sampling methodology, taxonomy (Higgins and Thiel, 1988)

Various reviews Review of marine meiofauna research (Coull, 1988) Review of freshwater meiofauna research (Pennak, 1988) Comparison of fauna of freshwater and marine beaches (Pennak, 1951) Importance of marine meiofauna to benthic community (Gerlack, 1971) Ecology of microfauna and meiofauna in marine sediment (Fenchel, 1978) Hyporheic/phreatic invertebrate literature (Danielopol, 1982) Evolutionary modifications of freshwater fauna from marine ancestors (Pennak, 1985) Biomass and abundance estimates for an entire lake benthos (Strayer, 1985) Zoogeography of groundwater fauna (Botosaneanu, 1986) Evolutionary considerations of marine meiofauna (Warwick, 1989) Groundwater ecology text (Gibert et al., 1994)

Distribution patterns Factors limiting distribution of fauna (Strayer, 1994b) Factors influencing spatial distribution (Fleeger and Decho, 1987; Decho and Fleeger,

1988) Trophic studies with Meiofauna

Blackwater river trophic interactions (Meyer, 1990) Role of bacteria and algae as food for meiofauna (Borchardt and Bott, 1995) Role of bacteria in aquatic systems, comparisons with protists and invertebrates (Kemp,

1990) Meiofaunal impacts on microbial communities (Tietjen, 1980) Meiofauna as food for fish (Gee, 1989; Coull, 1990)

Pollution research using meiofauna as bioindicators Pollution studies (primarily marine; Coull and Chandler, 1992) Toxicity studies (Traunspurger and Drews, 1996)

Streams Overview meiofaunal role in stream systems, laboratory and field exercises (Palmer and

Strayer, 1996) Flow and physicochemical factors that may influence faunal distribution (Williams, 1989,

1993) Microhabitats in hyporheic zone, influence of abiotic factors (Boulton et al., 1992)

Field experiments Marine field experiments (Coull and Palmer, 1984) Experimentation and research needs in hyporheic zones (Palmer, 1993)

aReferences are provided for those interested in more information regarding meiofaunal research, much of which has been completed in marine systems but has direct relevance to freshwater habitats.

of research on European hyporheic meiofauna exists (e.g., see Table I); much of that research has been conducted using mesh sizes >100 ~m or has fo- cused on specific taxonomic groups. We include a list of terms commonly encountered in the meiofaunal literature to encourage future cross-system comparisons (Table V).

2.-.

.-I

VI

i ©

.~.~

~

~.=

o~

°~0

~°~

_

~

~ v~

,~

~.~

,E E

i E

,<

~8 i

,~ o E

z~

316 Hakonkamp and Palmer

worms

nematodes

crustaceans

coarse r77-~ sand

rotifers

mites

insects

tardigrades

ot h e rs 1 / / / / / / / / / I m

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Composition (%) F/CURE I Comparison of hyporheic faunal composition in sandy versus coarse sediment streams. Values represent means for multiple streams and are taken from Table IV. Category "others" includes protists, gastrotrichs, and molluscs.

III. SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE

In many, if not most streams, meiofauna are abundant below the surface of the streambed (e.g., often 25 to >75% of total fauna occur below benthic sediments; Table VI). Most studies of stream meiofauna have been conducted at only a few locations within a streambed study site. Few studies have compared benthic (surface) versus hyporheic meiofaunal abundances between all sediment types within a stream (e.g., fine to coarse sediment zones, across more than one stream reach), longitudinally within a water- shed (Ward and Voelz, 1990), or between watersheds (Strayer, 1988a; Boul- ton et al., 1992; Ward and Palmer, 1994). Understandably, such studies would require extensive effort, but they would yield considerable information for generalizing across stream systems.

Our ability to make cross-system comparisons is also greatly hindered by an inability to quantitatively compare among different sampling methods (Palmer, 1993; Willliams, 1993). Hand-held corers cannot be used to sample

13. The Ecology of Hyporheic Meiofauna 317

very deeply into coarse sediments. Although pumping samples from coarse sediments is an alternative approach to quantifying abundances, determining from what depth samples are collected is problematic (Strayer and Bannon- O'Donnell, 1988; Creuz6 des Chfitelliers and Dole-Olivier, 1991; Bretschko,

TABLE V Terms C o m m o n l y Encountered in the Meiofauna l Li tera ture a

Bedsediments: channel-forming sediments dominated by epigeic organisms, uppermost hyporheic zone

Benthos: organisms that live primarily on (not in) stream sediments Epigeic: used to describe organisms that live in surface sediments or very shallow sediments

(fauna are epigeam fauna) Eupsammolittoral: habitat above the water line of sandy margins of streams Ground water: term varies to describe fauna that occur below the hyporheic zone (when

streambed is split into benthic, hyporheic, and ground water zones) to fauna that occur below depth of light penetration (when streambed is split into surface sediments and ground water sediments; thus term may actually include hyporheic fauna or may exclude hyporheic fauna), synonymous with phreatic

Hypogeic: used to describe organisms that live in the subsurface, not epibenthically or in very shallow sediment (fauna are hypogean faunam not synonymous with hyporheos)

Hyperbenthic: living at the surface-water interface or just above the sediments Hyporheos: organisms that live in the hyporheic zone Interstitial: organisms that live between sediment grains Karstic: term used to describe organisms associated with limestone caves and streams Meiobenthos: in marine systems, most meiofauna occur in upper few centimeters of sedi-

ments, so this term is often synonymous with meiofauna. In streams, it is probably more appropriate to use the term meiofauna because many species can occur in both shallow and deep sediments

Meiofauna: term generally used to describe organisms between 44 and 1000 p~m in size; term has been used in both singular and plural sense

Occasional or temporary hyporheos: organisms that do not live entire life in hyporheic zone Permanent hyporheos: organisms restricted to hyporheic zone through entire life cycle Phreatic: organisms that live in the subsurface, below the level of light penetration, may or

may not include hyporheos; synonymous with ground water Psammobites: organisms restricted to intersitial habitats Psammon: organisms associated with sand Psammophiles: organisms that spend entire life interstitially Psammoxenes: organisms whose presence in substrate is accidental Rithrostygon: term applied equal to hyporheic Stygobios: organisms that live in subsurface waters Stygobites: organisms that only live interstitially and whose bodies are modified for subsur-

face life style Stygophiles: organisms that can occur on or in sediments but whose bodies are not modified

for interstitial way of life Stygoxenes: organisms that generally live on surface of stream sediments but may be found

interstitially Troglobios: organisms that live in caves

aTerms have been gleaned from many sources including Williams and Hynes (1974), Pennak (1988), Giere (1993), and Marmonier et al. (1993).

u 0 0

,N

~S as

£ X

t~

£

~9 g

A

©0

00

0

00

0

o << ~ ,..a ~

0~

=~

o

.~o-,

=~

'~

~£W8

~sS~

o~

~-

'-S~ s

.£

m

~

~'~

~ .

~

9 O

13. The Ecology o[ Hyporheic Meio&una 319

1992). Recent studies (Fraser and Williams, 1997; Mauclaire et al., 1998) have compared different sampling methods (freeze-coring, Bretschko, 1990; Bou-Rouch pumping, Giere, 1993; Palmer and Strayer, 1996; Karman-Chap- puis digging, Strayer and Bannon-O'Donnell, 1988; Giere, 1993; hyporheic pot sampling, McElravy and Resh, 1991; and hand-coring Palmer and Stray- er, 1996); however, more information is needed, especially to compare between coarse and fine substrates. Additionally, a study is needed to compare subsurface sampling to surface sampling (e.g., Surber samples, McElravy and Resh, 1991). Such studies would reveal methodological biases and allow for generalizations between studies using different techniques.

Given the foregoing caveats, several generalizations can be made with respect to our knowledge of hyporheic taxa. First, many of the species found in the hyporheic zone are not endemic groundwater specialists but, in fact, are broad generalists that are surprisingly little modified for interstitial life beyond their general small size and often wormlike shape (Rouch and Danielopol, 1987; Strayer, 1988b; Reid and Strayer, 1994). Second, detailed taxonomic information is generally available for only two meiofaunal groups (crustaceans and insects). Third, widespread species-level data for most of the other meiofaunal groups (Table I) may never exist because of the difficulty in identifying these taxa. This is particularly likely for groups such as turbellarians and rotifers which are often identified live (Kolasa et al., 1987; Schmid-Araya, 1993; Turner and Palmer, 1996), nematodes for which there are few trained freshwater taxonomists (especially in North America), and protists which are often too fragile to sample even using hand-held corers. Even though taxon-specific meiofaunal studies have been valuable in broadening our general understanding of hyporheic systems, as well as fur- thering the study of important basic ecological questions (Schmid, 1993; such as the impact of disturbance on the resilience and resistance in communities, Schmid, 1992; Schmid-Araya, 1994b, 1995; Palmer et al., 1995, 1996a; Dole-Olivier et al., 1997; and the growth of spatially explicit ecology, Robertson et al., 1995), many basic ecology questions may be addressed using less precise taxonomic identification. For example, the impact of pollution, acidity, and nearness to open water channels on microcrustacean communities is obvious at relatively "simple" taxonomic levels for some streams (Ward and Palmer, 1994; Rundle and Attrill, 1995). However, clearly more taxonomic expertise and training are needed among hyporheic meiobenthologists (especially in North America), and the difficulty in identifying meiofauna to species is perhaps their greatest research liability.

IV. MEIOFAUNA AND THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

The distribution of meiofauna is greatly influenced by the direction and magnitude of water flow. Whether meiofauna are flushed from sediments or


can settle from the water column is largely dependent on hydrologic characteristics of the stream (Richardson, 1991, 1992; Palmer et al., 1992, 1995, 1996a). Water flow is very different in stream hyporheic zones compared to marine sediments that are exposed to fairly predictable and cyclic tidal fluc- tuations. In hyporheic zones the important flows influencing faunal distribution patterns are likely to be the magnitude of su face water flow (water velocity and sudden changes in discharge) and the amount and direction of vertical exchange (upwelling and downwelling; see Boulton, Chapter 14 in this volume). We will consider velocity and discharge later in this chapter; here we consider the importance of vertical exchange.

The vertical flux of surface and subsurface waters may influence the distribution and abundances of various meiofaunal taxa (e.g., distinct upwelling and downwelling assemblages seem to occur; see Boulton, Chapter 14 in this volume). Distinct species assemblages have been identified within the hyporheic zone, and more importantly, these assemblages have been cor- related with physicochemical factors that should vary with the magnitude and direction of vertical water flux (Boulton et al., 1992; Williams, 1993; Ruse, 1994). Thus, biota offer great potential for identifying the types and perhaps even the rates of biotic processes occurring within the hyporheic zone (see also Boulton, Chapter 14 in this volume). We must be cautious, though, because often whether meiofauna are responding to vertical hydrologic exchange or whether both are responding to other site-specific factors is not clear. Some studies have shown that upwelling sites can contain high abundances of fauna normally found at much greater depths in the hyporheic zone (see Dole-Olivier et al., 1997, for additional information); however, no controlled experimental manipulations have been conducted to show that the direction and magnitude of hyporheic flow is the causative factor (Palmer, 1993). Sediment grain size or water chemistry, or the interplay between these factors, must be considered when considering the distribution and abundance of hyporheic meiofauna (Ward and Voelz, 1990; Ruse, 1994; Strayer, 1994b; Ward and Palmer, 1994).

The most important physicochemical factor influenced by flow conditions and sediment granulometry is probably dissolved oxygen concentration (Strayer, 1994b; Findlay, 1995), which may in turn control the abundance and distribution of hyporheic meiofauna especially when oxygen concentration is low (Whitman and Clark, 1984; Williams, 1993). Experi- mental manipulation of sediment grain size has been found to influence the abundances of various stream meiofaunal taxa (Schwoerbel, 1967; but see Hakenkamp, 1997), perhaps by influencing oxygen concentration and interstitial flow rates (Strayer, 1994b; Findlay, 1995). The relationship between water flux, sediment grain size, and oxygen concentration needs to be ex- perimentally examined to determine if the presence of certain meiofaunal taxa could be used to identify areas within the hyporheic zone with specific interstitial flow patterns.

13. Tho Ecology of Hyporheic Meio[auna :321

V. TOLERANCE TO ANOXIA, BODY SIZE, AND BIOMASS

Hyporheic meiofauna have been found to exhibit similar tolerance limits to many of the same chemical factors as their marine counterparts. This tolerance includes pH (Rundle and Ormerod, 1991; Rundle, 1993), metals, pesticides (Plenet and Gibert, 1994; Traunspurger and Drews, 1996), and oxygen (Boulton et al., 1992). Recently, Giere (1993) summarized more than 20 years of research in marine, estuarine, and lentic systems on meiofauna that have the ability to live in low or anoxic conditions (see also Pennak, 1985). A wide variety of taxa (including protists, gnathostomulids, nematodes, gastrotrichs, turbellarians, crustaceans, and oligochaetes) contain species that can withstand and actually thrive in low or no oxygen conditions for long periods of time. In fact, facultative anaerobiosis is not un- common among marine interstitial meiofauna (Moodley et al., 1997). Con- siderable controversy exists concerning whether these meiofauna simply tolerate low oxygen conditions or actively feed on the rich stocks of sulfide- supported bacteria in such environments (Vopel et al., 1996). Regardless, many examples exist in which meiofauna (including freshwater taxa) sur- vived under completely anoxia for months (Giere, 1993).

The ability of meiofauna to survive under anoxia has important implications for hyporheic research. Stream ecologists will have to reexamine the assumption that biotic activity in low oxygen areas is restricted to micro- bially associated processes. Further, nonphotosynthetic primary production may support some part of hyporheic secondary production. Obviously, further study is needed; however, worthy of reiteration is that low oxygen areas in the hyporheic zone can have considerable abundances of active meiofauna. Although densities of meiofauna in these habitats may be lower than those in more oxygenated streambed sediments, given that a large part of the streambed can have low oxygen conditions (Baker et al., Chapter 11 in this volume), biomass of invertebrates in low oxygen sediments might be a considerable portion of the total biomass within a stream.

Physiological tolerance and total biomass of hyporheic meiofauna are intimately tied to body size and metabolism. Organismal body size is a top- ic of wide interest to ecologists because comparisons can be made for entire ecosystems (terrestrial and aquatic, planktonic and benthic) with less taxonomic precision needed (Hanson et al., 1989). Further, size spectra can provide clues as to how different faunal groups interact (e.g., predator-prey interactions; see Strayer, 1991) and about the role of environmental factors on community dynamics (Bourassa and Morin, 1995). For the marine benthos, clear biomass maxima are evident within meiofaunal and macrofaunal size gradients (Warwick, 1984), strongly suggesting clear separation, and even perhaps competitive exclusion, between organisms that live interstitially (meiofauna) and those that must live on top of or create burrows into the sediment (macrofauna). As discussed by Strayer (1991) and Cattaneo

3 2 2 Hakenkamp and Palmer

(1993), examining the spectrum of body sizes in a system is important because the occurrence of biomass peaks will influence how organisms (such as meiofauna) feed, find resources, and respond to predation.

Interestingly, presence and clear separation of macrofaunal and meiofaunal biomass peaks have not been found in studies on the size spectra of freshwater fauna (both lentic and lotic; Strayer, 1986; Poff et al., 1993), even though these studies were conducted in habitats with sediment grain sizes (and thus microhabitats) similar to the marine studies. In the freshwater studies, large abundances of insects and bivalves dominated the size spectra which points to potentially fundamental differences (evolutionary and ecological) between marine and freshwater ecosystems. Obviously more data, especially for hyporheic systems, are needed to verify whether the lack of distinct meiofaunal and macrofaunal body size maxima is a general finding for all freshwater systems. Further, more work is needed to explore the implications of size spectra differences for energy and material transfer within these systems (Strayer, 1991). The ecological interpretation of size spectra analysis is still under debate (Morin and Nadon, 1991; Poff et al., 1993; Bouras- sa and Morin, 1995), in part because it is unknown whether biomass can be meaningfully estimated at fairly coarse taxonomic levels and compared between different habitats.

VI. TROPHIC ROLES, DISPERSAL DYNAMICS, AND RESPONSE TO SPATIAL-TEMPORAL HETEROGENEITY

Controlled experimentation in stream ecology has been traditionally championed by ecologists working on fish and macroinvertebrate communities. Similar work on stream meiofauna is less common, in part because such studies can be methodologically difficult in the hyporheic zone (Palmer, 1993; Palmer and Strayer, 1996). Nonetheless, stream meiofauna have been used to test basic ecological questions and address the role of meiofauna in hyporheic systems.

The importance of hyporheic meiofauna as food for higher trophic levels has been of interest for some time because they can be found in the guts of a wide variety of predators. Amores-Serrano (1991) found copepods, ostracods, and cladocerans in the gut contents of approximately 95% of the fish in an Arkansas stream. Hyporheic meiofauna have also been confirmed as important in the diet of larval fish. In field experiments conducted during summer baseflow in a sandy stream, abundances of meiofauna were reduced significantly inside cages with fish (at densities commonly found in the stream) versus fishless cages or cage controls (Shofner, 1999). Field experiments in an Arkansas stream also suggested that fish predation on stream meiofauna may be significant (Pope and Brown, 1996).

The effect of stream macroinvertebrates (some of which are known

13. The Ecology o[ Hyporheic Meiofauna 3 2 3

meiofauna predators) on hyporheic meiofauna has received little study, though crustaceans have been found in macroinvertebrate guts (Sherberger and Wallace, 1971; Benke and Wallace, 1980). Chironomids in a Austrian stream were found to feed extensively on rotifers, although prey choice in general was found to be strongly related to prey availability (Schmid-Arraya and Schmid, 1995; Schmid and Schmid-Arraya, 1997). In a North Carolina stream, experimental removal of macroinvertebrates from a stream influenced meiofaunal abundances, but the impact was variable through time and space (O'Doherty, 1988). Although the nature of the interaction was inde- terminate, this study clearly showed that macroinvertebrates can have an impact on meiofauna.

Macroinvertebrate and fish predators may influence the dispersal dynamics of hyporheic meiofauna. Fish predators increased the frequency and magnitude of meiofaunal movements causing an increase in emigration (Shofner and Palmer, 1997). Changes in flow are also well known to influence meiofaunal movement and distribution. Meiofauna aggregate in areas of the streambed characterized by low shear stress (Robertson et al., 1995, 1997). They also make small-scale vertical migrations within the hyporheic zone in response to small changes in surface velocities but are unable to migrate deep into the streambed in order to avoid high flows during spates (Palmer et al., 1992). During high flows, meiofauna are often eroded just like grains of sand and may be deposited in areas of reduced flows such as backwater regions (Richardson, 1991) or near debris dams (Palmer et al., 1995, 1996a; see also Boulton, Chapter 14 in this volume). Thus, the notion that the hyporheic zone is a refuge for all invertebrates during spates (see review in Palmer et al., 1992) may not be true for meiofauna, particularly in sandy streams. Larger macrofauna, or some species of meiofauna in gravel/cobble streams, may indeed be able to quickly migrate into the hyporheic zone pri- or to or during spates (Dole-Olivier et al., 1997).

Meiofauna may also enter the water column actively in response to changes in flow or to habitat (food) quality (Palmer, 1992; Tokeshi, 1994). Hyporheic meiofauna may move up to the surface of the streambed and/ or onto the surfaces of wood, leaves, and vegetation when flows are low (less than critical erosion velocity for the sediments) or when they find themselves in unsuitable habitats following spates (Palmer, 1990b, 1992; Palmer et al., 1995, 1996a). Indeed, sand-dwelling meiofauna appear to track the presence and quality of leaf matter on and in hyporheic sediments (Swan, 1997; Palmer et al., 1999). When patch quality was manipulated (amount of microbial and fungal biomass and production) in the hyporheic zone, meiofaunal abundances (especially chironomids) increased dramati- cally in high quality areas (Swan, 1997). Similarly, fitness (measured as egg output and growth rate) of chironomids on these patches was higher than on patches of lower quality (Ward and Cummins, 1979; Stanko-mischic et al., 1999).

3 2 4 Hakenkamp and Palmer

The responses of meiofauna to spatial heterogeneity in food resources and to temporal heterogeneity in flow has been long recognized by marine ecologists (Decho and Fleeger, 1988). Recent work by Swan (1997), Stanko- mishic et al. (1999), Palmer et al. (1999) and Tokeshi (1994) suggests that stream meiofauna may be good experimental organisms for testing resource and patch dynamics theory. Manipulations of the magnitude, direction (upwelling vs. downwelling), and variability in hydraulic gradients and measurement of the meiofaunal response may be a fruitful avenue for understanding the importance of environmental heterogeneity (over time or space) to stream ecosystems (Palmer et al., 1997).

VII. MEIOFAUNAL-MICROBIAL INTERACTIONS

Very little is known about the relationship between meiofauna and microbial communities in streams despite their obvious trophic interactions. Meiofauna feed on bacterial cells associated with detritus (Perlmutter and Meyer, 1991) and on small algae and bacteria associated with inorganic sediments (Borchardt and Bott, 1995). Chironomids and copepods have been shown to preferentially assimilate bacterial carbon compared to detrital par- ticulate organic matter (Hall, 1995).

A more comprehensive understanding of the relationship between meiofauna and bacteria exists in marine systems where microbial food web dynamics have been more extensively studied (Table III). Giere (1993) reviewed the marine literature and emphasized six major points. First, although meiofauna feed on bacteria, they rarely reduce bacterial biomass (in part because bacterial productivity is so rapid). Meiofauna are important in removing dead cells from the microbial community and in so doing, enhance bacterial growth rates (Meyer-Reil and Faubel, 1980; Montagna, 1984, 1995). Second, meiofauna may increase microbial growth rates by increasing the supply of limiting resources, such as essential nutrients and providing organic matter (mucus secretions, Gerlach, 1978; Riemann and Schrage, 1978; Alkemade et al., 1992). Third, meiofauna may increase flux- es of oxygen and nutrients to bacteria in deeper sediment layers through bioturbation (creating burrows and tubes that increase water movement through sediments), although the spatial scale of bioturbation effects may be rather small (i.e., a few centimeters; Aller and Aller, 1992; Green and Chandler, 1994). Fourth, meiofauna may make detritus more accessible to bacteria by mechanically breaking it down into smaller pieces (Tenore et al., 1977; Chauvet et al., 1993). Fifth, meiofauna may serve as food for bacteria following death. Sixth, meiofauna may be symbiotic partners for spe- cialized bacteria (e.g., sulfate reducers, Giere and Langheld, 1987; Fenchel and Finlay, 1989).

Examining the role of small invertebrates in microbial dynamics has

13. The Ecology of Hyporheic Meiofauna 3 2 5

greatly increased our understanding of ecosystem processes in both planktonic (lakes and oceans) and benthic (marine) habitats. Almost nothing is known about these same dynamics in stream hyporheic systems, and this should clearly be an area of exciting future research. Given that meiofauna influence microbial growth and abundances in other benthic systems, meiofauna likely play a central role in influencing many processes in stream hyporheic systems including decomposition, primary production, and trophic exchanges.

VIII. MEIOFAUNA AND ECOSYSTEM ECOLOGY

We conclude this chapter with a hypothesis concerning how hyporheic meiofauna may have an impact on stream ecosystem functioning (e.g., oxygen consumption, secondary production, decomposition). The importance of meiofauna to hyporheic functioning is virtually unstudied, and we wish to present ideas for generating discussion and future research. Here we fo- cus specifically on meiofauna in the hyporheic zone; the potential importance of all freshwater invertebrates to ecosystem processes in sediments has also been recently reviewed (Palmer et al., 1997).

We begin by reiterating several key points. First, hyporheic meiofauna are abundant, taxonomically diverse, and have rapid generation times. Sec- ond, meiofauna are mobile, both interstitially throughout a wide range of sediment grain sizes, and between different habitat patches within the same stream. Third, at least some species, from a wide variety of taxa, are tolerant of low oxygen and perhaps anoxia. Fourth, meiofauna are trophic links between the macroinvertebrate/fish community (as prey) and the microbial community (via predation or by stimulating microbial metabolism). Fifth, meiofauna may influence the rates of various microbial processes by en- hancing the availability of limiting resources.

Given the strong evidence that hyporheic microbial processes are extremely important to stream ecosystem functioning (Fischer et al., 1996; see also Findlay and Sobczak, Chapter 12 in this volume; Baker et al., Chap- ter 11 in this volume), we ask the question: under what conditions might meiofaunal processes influence rates of hyporheic microbial processes? We suggest that meiofauna may be most important to ecosystem functioning when bulk interstitial flow rates are very low (i.e., low hydraulic conduc- tivity). We outline our logic through the presentation of three scenarios cho- sen from points on the continuum of low to high interstitial water flow rates. Interstitial water flow rates should be important to a wide variety of both meiofaunal and microbial processes (Fig. 2) especially by controlling how quickly new resources enter the hyporheic zone (Strayer, 1994b; Find- lay, 1995; Kaplan and Newbold, Chapter 10 in this volume; Findlay and Sobczak, Chapter 12 in this volume).


Interstitial flow rate

Low Medium High

Sediment grain size small ~ large

Dissolved oxygen concentration 1 " high OW ~,-

Rate of nutrient supply to sediments low ~- high

Importance ofbioturbation by meiofauna high low

Importance of meiofauna tolerant of ,al anoxia high "~ low

Abundances of meiofauna not tolerant of anoxia in surface sediments high ~' 1 OW

Relative abundances of macrofauna compared to meiofauna low ~ - high

Stimulation of microbial community by meiofauna high -"~. - low

Overall importance of meiofauna to ecosystem functioning high ~ " low

FIGURE 2 Proposed relationship between abiotic and biotic parameters in streams of varying interstitial flow rates.

A. Scenario A: High Interstitial Flow Rates

High interstitial flow rates (>10 cm sec-1; e.g., Flathead River; Ward and Stanford, 1993) may cause selection for species that can withstand erosion and high shear stresses, and the supply of nutrients and oxygen is probably large enough to meet the metabolic demands of the microbial community. Rapid interstitial flow rates are typical in systems with coarse sediments (e.g., cobble, gravel) because there is often a positive relationship between grain size and interstitial flow rates (Findlay, 1995; Harvey and Wagner, Chapter 1 in this volume). Large grain sizes would allow colonization of the hyporheic zone by macroinvertebrates. Whereas meiofauna can be abundant in such systems (Ward and Voelz, 1990), their impact on overall ecosystem processes is probably overwhelmed by large hydrologic flux and may be small relative to the effects of microbes and macroinvertebrates (see Boul- ton, Chapter 14 in this volume). Thus, we predict that meiofauna will have the least impact on hyporheic ecosystem processes when interstitial water flow rates are very large.

13. The Ecology of Hyporheic Me&fauna 3 2 7

B. Scenario B. Intermediate InLersLitial Flow Rates

At intermediate interstitial flow rates (2-7 cm sec-1; e.g., Sycamore Creek; Valett et al., 1990), we suggest that meiofauna should be more important to ecosystem processes than at higher interstitial flow rates. This should be true especially when decreased interstitial flow rates are associated with decreased sediment grain size and smaller interstitial pore spaces, and thus fewer macrofauna relative to meiofauna (see Fig. 1; Boulton, Chap- ter 14 in this volume). Dissolved oxygen, nutrients, and organic matter should be supplied at sufficient rates from surface waters to maintain oxic conditions. In these systems, meiofauna should be important in the breakdown of larger-sized organic matter, increasing microbial colonization and mineralization, as well as food resources to larger filter-feeding meiofauna such as rotifers, ciliates, and crustaceans. By grazing on attached microbial communities, meiofauna such as nematodes, crustaceans, and oligochaetes should stimulate microbial growth and production. Thus, rates of total meiofaunal community secondary production and organic matter mineralization should be large. Upwelling sites may become "hotspots" of predation on meiofauna by macroinvertebrates and fish given the large secondary production by meiofauna. In such systems, we predict that meiofauna contribute greatly to total hyporheic secondary production both directly via their production and indirectly by increasing rates of microbial production.

C. Scenario C. Low Interstitial Flow Rates

At low interstitial flow rates (<2 cm sec-1; e.g., Goose Creek; Hak- enkamp, 1997), microzones should start to form within the hyporheic zone as either dissolved oxygen, organic matter, or nutrients become locally de- pleted (Paerl and Pinckney, 1996). In this scenario, bioturbation by meiofauna may become important in providing limiting resources to individual microhabitats. Meiofauna will have different roles in this type of system depending on their tolerance for low oxygen conditions. Taxa that are tolerant of low oxygen conditions will be able to move among microhabitats, graze the microbial biofilms, and perhaps provide the only sources of organic matter or nutrients in the form of secretions and fecal material. Taxa that are sensitive to low oxygen conditions will become concentrated in the upper few centimeters of the streambed (e.g., as in silty or muddy sediments). In marine sediments of this type, bioturbation by meiofauna has been found to be an important determinant of solute transport across the sediment-water interface (Aller and Aller, 1992; Green and Chandler, 1994), and predation by fish on meiofauna is often large because meiofaunal biomass is concentrated near the sediment-water interface (Coull, 1990). In streams, this concentration of meiofauna near the streambed surface may increase the number of passively eroded meiofauna that enter the drift (Shiozawa, 1986). In


low flow interstitial systems, we predict that meiofauna will cause increased microbial growth and production. Meiofaunal bioturbation will foster solute transport across the sediment-water interface, and predation on meiofauna by fish and macrofauna may be large.

In summary, we suggest that meiofauna may be extremely important to stream ecosystem functioning when interstitial flow rates are intermediate to low (Fig. 2). In low flow sediment systems, meiofauna may have very different roles depending on their depth in the hyporheic zone and sensitivity to anoxic conditions. At the surface of the sediments, where biomass may be greatest, meiofauna would be involved in solute transport through bioturbation and as food for fish and macroinvertebrates. In deeper hyporheic sediments, meiofauna tolerant of low dissolved oxygen conditions may be important in stimulating microbial processes. Given that we know almost nothing about the role of hyporheic meiofauna in stream ecosystem functioning across hyporheic systems, these hypotheses remain to be tested.

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS

In the last few decades, research on hyporheic meiofauna has greatly increased, aided in part by what was already known about the important role

TABLE VII Research Needed on Meiofauna That Would Contr ibute Most to the Advancement of Hyporheic Ecology

1. Broader spatial scale of examination of surface versus hyporheic invertebrate abundance, biomass, and biodiversity to facilitate generalizations about meiofaunal communities in and between streams.

2. Greater taxonomic training of hyporheic researchers to expand what little is known about meiofaunal species in streams (especially in North America)

3. Explicit comparison of the usefulness and bias of different sampling techniques, across a variety of sediment grain sizes.

4. Experimental manipulation of critical factors (e.g., oxygen level and food availability) that are thought to control the distribution of meiofauna.

5. Greater study of size and biomass spectra of hyporheic fauna (including protists) to allow comparisons between streams and to facilitate consideration of factors restricting growth and reproduction.

6. Experiments to study the importance of meiofauna to rates of ecological processes in the hyporheic zone, especially nutrient, carbon, and oxygen dynamics.

7. Examination of the nature of interactions (direct and indirect) between macrofauna and meiofauna.

8. Experiments to determine whether predation on meiofauna is enhanced or diminished by meiofaunal movements into and out of the hyporheic zone.

9. Study of the relationship between meiofauna and microbes (bacteria, small protists, fungi) determining whether meiofauna influence rates of microbial processes in hyporheic sediments.

13. The Ecology o[ Hyporheic Meio[auna 329

of meiofauna in marine systems. Many issues require further study, and we present a list of some we believe are most important and immediate in Table VII. It is clear that hyporheic meiofauna are likely important players in both community and ecosystem processes in streams. They are often a dominant component of the hyporheos in terms of abundances, species diversity, and total biomass, and they have the ability to move rapidly between different sediment patches within the stream and rapidly recolonize those patches af- ter floods. Meiofauna are also likely to be important trophic links between the macroinvertebrate-fish community and the microbial community and may influence the rates of microbial processes.

REFERENCES

Alkemade, R., A. Wielemaker, S. A. deJong, and A. J. J. Dandee. 1992. Experimental evidence for the role of bioturbation by the marine nematode Diplolaimelloides dievengatensis in stimulating the mineralization of Spartina anglica detritus. Marine Ecology Progress Se- ries 90:149-155.

Aller, R. C., and J. Y. Aller. 1992. Meiofauna and solute transport in marine muds. Limnology and Oceangraphy 37:1018-1033.

Amores-Serrano, R. R. 1991. Stream dwelling meiofauna: Temporal abundance, distribution and utilization by larval fish. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Arkansas, Little Rock.

Benke, A. C., and J. B. Wallace. 1980. The trophic basis of production among net-spinning cad- disflies in a southern Applachian stream. Ecology 61:108-118.

Borchardt, M. A., and T. L. Bott. 1995. Meiofaunal grazing of bacteria and algae in a Piedmont stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:278-298.

Botosaneanu, L. 1986. "Stygofauna Mundi." Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands. Boulton, A. J., H. M. Valett, and S. G. Fisher. 1992. Spatial distribution and taxonomic com-

position of the hyporheos of several Sonoran Desert streams. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 125:37-61.

Bourassa, N., and A. Morin. 1995. Relationships between size structure of invertebrate assemblages and trophy and substrate composition in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:393-403.

Braioni, M. G., and M. Gottardi. 1979. I Rotiferi dell'Adige: Confronto trail popolamento in- terstiziale quello bentico-perifitico. Bolletino de Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona 6:187-219.

Bretschko, G. 1990. The effect of escape reactions on the quantitative sampling of gravel stream fauna. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 120:41-49.

Bretschko, G. 1992. The sedimentfauna in the uppermost parts of the impoundment "AI- tenworth" (Danube, stream km 2005 and 2007). Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplement- band 84:131-168.

Bretschko, G., and E. Christian. 1989. Collembola in the bed sediments of an alpine gravel stream (RITRODAT-Lunz Study Area, Austria). Internationalen Revue der gesamten Hy- drobiologie 74:491-498.

Cattaneo, A. 1993. Size spectra of benthic communities in Laurentian streams. Canadian Jour- nal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:2659-2666.

Chauvet, E., N. Giani, and M. O. Gessner. 1993. Breakdown and invertebrate colonization of leaf litter in two contrasting streams: significance of oligochaetes in a large river. Canadi- an Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:488-495.


Coireau, N. 1971. Les isopodes interstitiels: Documents sur leur ~cologie et leur biologie. Md- moires des Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Series A (Paris) 64:1-170.

Coull, B. C. 1988. Ecology of marine meiofauna. In "Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna" (R. P. Higgins and H. Thiel, eds.), pp. 18-38. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC.

Coull, B. C. 1990. Are members of the meiofauna food for higher trophic levels? Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 109:233-246.

Coull, B. C., and G. T. Chandler. 1992. Pollution and meiofauna: Field, laboratory, and meso- cosm studies. Oceanography and Marine Biology 30:191-271.

Coull, B. C., and O. Giere. 1988. The history of meiofaunal research. In "Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna" (R. P. Higgins and H. Thiel, eds.), pp. 14-17. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC.

Coull, B. C., and M. A. Palmer. 1984. Field experimentation in meiofaunal ecology. Hydrobi- ologia 118:1-19.

Creuz6 des Ch~telliers, M., and M. J. Dole-Olivier. 1991. Tests of the Bou-Rouch sampler used for interstitial fauna capture. (I). Chemical tracing with NaC1. Comptes Rendus des Seances de l'Academie des Sciences 312:671-676.

Danielopol, D. L. 1980. Sur la biologie de quelques Ostracodes Canoninae 6pig6s ets hypog6s d'Europe. Bulletin du Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle 2:471-506.

Danielopol, D. L. 1982. Phreatobiology reconsidered. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 29:375-386.

Danielopol, D. L. 1984. Ecological investigations on the alluvial sediments of the Danube in the Vienna area--a phreatobiological project. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereinigung fiir Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 22:1755-1761.

Decho, A. W., and J. W. Fleeger. 1988. Microscale dispersion of meiobenthic copepods in response to food-resource patchiness. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecolo- gy 118:229-244.

Dole-Olivier, M. J., P. Marmonier, and J.-L. Beffy. 1997. Response of invertebrates to lotic disturbance: Is the hyporheic zone a patchy refugium? Freshwater Biology 37:257-276.

Dumont, H. J., and S. Negrea. 1996. Conspectus of the Cladocera of the subterranean waters of the world. Hydrobiologia 325:1-30.

Eder, R. 1983. Nematoden aus dem interstitiial der Donau bei Fischamend (Nieder6sterreich). Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplementband 68:100-113.

Fenchel, T. 1978. The ecology of micro- and meiobenthos. Annual Review of Ecology and Sys- tematics 9:99-121.

Fenchel, T. M., and B. J. Finlay. 1989. Kentrophoros: A mouthless ciliate with a symbiotic kitchen garden. Ophelia 30:75-93.

Findlay, S. 1995. Importance of surface-subsurface exchange in stream ecosystems: The hyporheic zone. Limnology and Oceanography 40:159-164.

Fischer, H., M. Pusch, and J. Schwoerbel. 1996. Spatial distribution and respiration of bacteria in stream-bed sediments. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 137:281-300.

Fleeger, J. W., and A. W. Decho. 1987. Spatial variability of interstitial meiofauna: A review. Stygologia 3:35-54.

Fraser, B. G. and D. D.Williams. 1997. Accuracy and precision in sampling hyporheic fauna. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:1135-1141.

Gee, J. M. 1989. An ecological and economic review of meiofauna as food for fish. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 93:243-261,

Gerlach, S. A. 1971. On the importance of marine meiofauna for benthos communities. Oecologia 6:176-190.

Gerlach, S. A. 1978. Food-chain relationships in subtidal silty-sand marine sediments and the role of meiofauna in stimulating bacterial growth. Oecologia 33:55-69.

Gibert, J., D. L. Danielopol, and J. A. Stanford. 1994. "Groundwater Ecology." Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Giere, O. 1993. "Meiobenthology." Springer-Verlag, Berlin.


Giere, O., and C. Langheld. 1987. Structural organization, transfer and biological fate of en- dosymbiotic bacteria in gutless oligochaetes. Marine Biology 93:641-650.

Gledhill, L. 1982. Water-mites (Hydrachnellae, Limnohalacaridae, Acari) from the interstitial habitat of riverine deposits in Scotland. Polskie Archiwum Hydrobiologii 29:439-451.

Golladay, S. W., and C. L. Hax. 1995. Effects of an engineered flow disturbance on meiofauna in a north Texas prairie stream. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:404-413.

Green, A. S., and G. T. Chandler. 1994. Meiofaunal bioturbation effects on the partitioning of sediment-associated cadmium. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 180:59-70.

Hakenkamp, C. C. 1997. Oxygen consumption in streambeds: Examining the impacts of environmental factors and hyporheic fauna. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, Col- lege Park.

Hall, R. O. 1995. Use of a stable isotope addition to trace bacterial carbon through a stream food web. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 14:269-277.

Hanson, J. M., E. E. Prepas, and W. C. Mackay. 1989. Size distribution of the macroinvertebrate community in a freshwater lake. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 46:1510-1519.

Higgins, R. P., and H. Thiel, eds. 1988. "Introduction to the Study of Meiofauna." Smithson- ian Press, Washington, DC.

Hummon, W. D. 1981. Extraction by sieving: A biased procedure in studies of stream meiobenthos. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 100:278-284.

Hummon, W. D. 1987. Meiobenthos of the Mississippi headwaters. In "Biology of Tardi- grades" (R. Bertolani, ed.), pp. 125-140. Mucchi, Modena.

Hummon, W. D., W. A. Evans, M. R. Hummon, E G. Doherty, R. H. Waiberg, and S. Stanley. 1978. Meiofaunal abundance in sandbars of acid mine polluted, reclaimed, and unpollut- ed streams in southeastern Ohio. In "Energy and Environmental Stress in Aquatic Ecosys- tems" (J. H. Thorp and J. W. Gibbons, eds.), DOE Symposium Series, pp. 188-203. Na- tional Technical Information Services, Springfield, IL.

Kemp, P. F. 1990. The fate of benthic bacterial production. Reviews in Aquatic Sciences 2:109- 123.

Klemens, W. E. 1991. Quantitative sampling of bed sediments (Ritrodat-Lunz study area, Aus- tria). Verhandlungen Internationale Vereingung fiir Theoretische und Angewandte Lim- nologie 24:1926-1929.

Kolasa, J. 1982. On the origin of stream interstitial Microturbellarians. Polskie Archiwum Hy- drobiologii 29:405-413.

Kolasa, J. 1983. Formation of the turbellarian fauna in a submontane stream in Italy. Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia 26:297- 354.

Kolasa, J., D. Strayer, and E. Bannon-O'Donnell. 1987. Microturbellarians from interstitial waters, streams, and springs in southeastern New York. Journal of the North American Ben- thological Society 6:125-132.

Kowarc, A. V. 1990. Production biology of Limnocamptus echinatus (Harpacticoida) in a second order gravel stream. Stygologia 5:25-32.

Kowarc, A. V. 1992. Depth distribution and mobility of a harpacticoid copepod within the bed sediment of an alpine brook. Regulated Rivers 7:57-63.

Lafont, M., A. Durbec, and C. Ille. 1992. Oligochaete worms as biological describers of the interactions between surface and groundwaters: A first synthesis. Regulated Rivers 7:65- 73.

Lescher-Mouton~, E 1973. Sur la biologie et l'ecologie des Cop@odes Cyclopides hypog~s (Crustac~s). Annales de Spdldologie 28:429-502, 581-674.

Mare, M. E 1942. A study of a marine benthic community with special reference to the micro- organisms. Journal of Marine Biology 25:517-554.

Marmonier, P., and M. Creuz~ des Chfitelliers. 1992. Biogeography of the benthic and intersti-


tial living ostracods (Crustacea) of the Rhone River (France). Journal of Biogeography 19:693-704.

Marmonier, P., and J. Ward. 1990. Superficial and interstitial Ostracoda of the South Platte Riv- er (Colorado, U.S.A.)--systematics and biogeography. Stygologia 5:225-239.

Marmonier, P., P. Vervier, J. Gibert, and M.-J. Dole-Olivier. 1993. Biodiversity in ground waters. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 8:392-395.

Mauclaire, L., P. Marmonier, and J. Gibert. 1998. Sampling water and sediment in interstitial habitats: A comparison of coring and pumping techniques. Archiv fi;tr Hydrobiologie 142:111-123.

McElravy, E. P., and V. H. Resh. 1991. Distribution and seasonal occurrence of the hyporheic fauna in a northern California stream. Hydrobiologia 220:233-246.

Meyer, J. L. 1990. A blackwater perspective on riverine ecosystems. BioScience 40:643-651. Meyer-Reil, L.-A., and A. Faubel. 1980. Uptake of organic matter by meiofauna organisms and

interrelationships with bacteria. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 3:251-256. Montagna, P. A. 1984. In situ measurement of meiobenthic grazing rates on sediment bacteria

and edaphic diatoms. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 18:119-130. Montagna, P. A. 1995. Rates of metazoan meiofaunal microbivory: A review. Vie Milieu 45:

1-9. Moodley, L., G. J. van der Zwaan, P. M. J. Herman, L. Kempers, and P. van Breugel. 1997. Dif-

ferential response of benthic meiofauna to anoxia with special reference to Foraminifera (Protista: Sarcodina). Marine Ecology: Progress Series 158:151-163.

Morin, A., and D. Nadon. 1991. Size distribution of epilithic lotic invertebrates and implications for community metabolism. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:300-308.

O'Doherty, E. C. 1988. The ecology of meiofauna in an Appalachian headwater stream. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.

Paerl, H. W., and J. L. Pinckney. 1996. A mini-review of microbial consortia: their roles in aquatic production and biogeochemical cycling. Microbial Ecology 31:225-247.

Palmer, M. A. 1990a. Temporal and spatial dynamics of meiofauna within the hyporheic zone of Goose Creek, Virginia. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9:17-25.

Palmer, M. A. 1990b. Understanding the movement dynamics of a stream-dwelling meiofauna community using marine analogs. Stygologia 5:67-74.

Palmer, M. A. 1992. Incorporating lotic meiofauna into our understanding faunal transport processes. Limnology and Oceanography 37:329-341.

Palmer, M. A. 1993. Experimentation in the hyporheic zone: challenges and prospectus. Jour- nal of the North American Benthological Society 12:84-93.

Palmer, M. A., and D. L. Strayer. 1996. Meiofauna. In "Methods in Stream Ecology" (E R. Hauer and G. A. Lamberti, eds.), pp. 315-337. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Palmer, M. A., A. E. Bely, and K. E. Berg. 1992. Response of invertebrates to lotic disturbance: A test of the hyporheic refuge hypothesis. Oecologia 89:182-194.

Palmer, M. A., P. Arensburger, P. S. Botts, C. C. Hakenkamp, and J. W. Reid. 1995. Disturbance and the community structure of stream invertebrates: patch-specific effects and the role of refugia. Freshwater Biology 34:343-356.

Palmer, M. A., P. Arensburger, A. P. Martin, and D. W. Denman. 1996a. Disturbance and patch- specific responses: The interactive effects of woody debris and floods on lotic invertebrates. Oecologia 105:247-257.

Palmer, M. A., C. C. Hakenkamp, and K. Nelson-Baker. 1996b. Ecological heterogeneity in streams: Why variance matters. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 16:189-202.

Palmer, M. A., A. P. Covich, B. Finlay, J. Gibert, K. D. Hyde, R. K. Johnson, T. Kairesalo, S. Lake, C. R. Lovell, R. J. Naiman, C. Ricci, E Sabater, and D. Strayer. 1997. Biodiversity and ecosystem function in freshwater sediments. Ambio 26:571-577.

Palmer, M. A., C. M. Swan, K. Nelson, P. Silver, and R. Alvestad. 1999. Streambed landscapes:


Evidence that stream invertebrates respond to the type and spatial arrangement of patches. Landscape Ecology, In Press.

Pennak, R. W. 1951. Comparative ecology of the interstitial fauna of fresh-water and marine beaches. Annde Biologique 27:217-249.

Pennak, R. W. 1985. The fresh-water invertebrate fauna: Problems and solutions for evolutionary success. American Zoologist 25:671-687.

Pennak, R. W. 1988. Ecology of freshwater meiofauna. In "Introduction to the Study of Meio- fauna" (R. P. Higgins and H. Thiel, eds.), pp. 39-60. Smithsonian Press, Washington, DC.

Pennak, R. W., and J. V. Ward. 1986. Interstitial fauna communities of the hyporheic and ad- jacent groundwater biotopes of a Colorado mountain stream. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplementband 74:356-396.

Perlmutter, D. G., and J. L. Meyer. 1991. The impact of a stream-dwelling harpacticoid copepod upon detritially associated bacteria. Ecology 72:2170-2180.

Plenet, S., and J. Gibert. 1994. Invertebrate community responses to physical and chemical factors at the river/aquifer interaction zone I. Upstream from the city of Lyon. Archiv fiir Hy- drobiologie 132:165-189.

Poff, N.L., M. A. Palmer, P. L. Angermeier, R. L. Vadas, Jr., C. C. Hakenkamp, A. Bely, P. Arens- burger, and A. P. Martin. 1993. The size structure of a metazoan community in a Pied- mont stream. Oecologia 95:202-209.

Pope, M. L., and A. V. Brown. 1996. Effects of flow rate, predation and diel periodicity on drift- ing and benthic meiofauna densities in artificial streams. Bulletin of the North American Benthological Society 13:135.

Reid, J. W., and D. L. Strayer. 1994. Diacyclops dimorphus, a new species of copepod from Florida, with comments on morphology of interstitial cyclopine cyclopoids. Journal of the North American Benthology Society 13:250-265.

Richardson, W. B. 1991. Seasonal dynamics, benthic habitat use, and drift of zooplankton in a small stream in southern Oklahoma, U.S.A. Canadian Journal of Zoology 69:748-756.

Richardson, W. B. 1992. Microcrustacea in flowing water: Experimental analysis of washout times and a field test. Freshwater Biology 28:217-230.

Riemann, E, and M. Schrage. 1978. The mucus-trap hypothesis on feeding of aquatic nematodes and implications for biodegradation and sediment texture. Oecologia 34:75-88.

Robertson, A.L., J. Lancaster, and A. G. Hildrew. 1995. Stream hydraulics and the distribution of microcrustacea: A role for refugia? Freshwater Biology 33:469-484.

Robertson, A. L., J. Lancaster, L. R. Belyea, and A. G. Hildrew. 1997. Hydraulic habitat and the community structure of stream benthic microcrustacea. Journal of the North Ameri- can Benthological Society 16:562-575.

Rouch, R. 1968. Contribution fi la connaissance des Harpacticides hypog6s (Crustac~s Cop6podes). Annales de Spdldologie 23:5-167.

Rouch, R. 1988. Sur la r6partition spatiale des Crustac~s dans le sous-&oulement d'un ruisseau des Pyr6n~es. Annales de Limnologie 24:213-234.

Rouch, R. 1991. Structure du peuplement des Harpacticides dans le milieu hyporheique d'un ruisseau des Pyr~n6es. Annales de Limnologie 27:227-241.

Rouch, R. 1995. Peuplement des Crustac6s dans la zone hyporheique d'un ruisseau des Pyr6n6es. Annales de Limnologie 31:9-28.

Rouch, R., and D. L. Danielopol. 1987. L'origine de la faune aquatique souterraine; entre le paradigme du refuge et le modele de la colonisation active. Stygologia 3:345-372.

Rundle, S. D. 1993. Temporal and demographic patterns of microcrustacean populations in upland Welsh streams of contrasting pH. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 128:91-106.

Rundle, S. D., and M. J. Attrill. 1995. Comparison of meiobenthic crustacean community structure across freshwater acidification gradients. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie 133:441-456.

Rundle, S. D., and S. J. Ormerod. 1991. The influence of chemistry and habitat features on the microcrustacea of some upland Welsh streams. Freshwater Biology 26:439-451.


Ruse, L. P. 1994. Chironomid microdistribution in gravel of an English chalk river. Freshwater Biology 32:533-551.

Schmid, P. E. 1992. Community structure of larval Chironomidae (Diptera) in a backwater area of the River Danube. Freshwater Biology 27:151-167.

Schmid, P. E. 1993. Random patch dynamics of larval Chironomidae (Diptera) in the bed sediments of a gravel stream. Freshwater Biology 30:239-255.

Schmid, P. E., and J. M. Schmid-Araya. 1997. Predation on meiobenthic assemblages: Resource use of a tanypod guild (Chironomidae, Diptera) in a gravel stream. Freshwater Biology 38:67-91.

Schmid-Araya, J. M. 1993. Benthic rotifera inhabiting the bed sediments of a mountain gravel stream. Journal of the Biological Station Lunz 14:75-101.

Schmid-Araya, J. M. 1994a. Spatial and temporal distribution of micro-meiofaunal groups in an alpine stream. Verhandlungen Internationale Vereingung fiir Theoretische und Ange- wandte Limnologie 25:2649-1655.

Schmid-Araya, J. M. 1994b. Temporal and spatial distribution of benthic microfauna in sediments of a gravel streambed. Limnology and Oceanography 39:1813-1821.

Schmid-Araya, J. M. 1995. Disturbance and population dynamics of rotifers in bed sediments. Hydrobiologia 313/314:279-290.

Schmid-Araya, J. M., and P. E. Schmid. 1995. Preliminary results on diet of stream invertebrate species: The meiofaunal assemblages. Journal of the Biological Station Lunz 15:23-31.

Schwank, P. 1981-1982. Turbellarien, Oligochaeten und Archianneliden des Breitenbachs und anderer oberhessischer Mittelgebirgsbache. I-IV. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplement- band 62:1-85, 86-147, 191-253,254-290.

Schwoerbel, J. 1961. Subterrane wassermilben (Acari: Hydrachnellae, Porohalacaridae und Sty- gothrombiidae), ihre Okologie und Bedeutung ftir Abgrenzung eines aquatischen Leben- sraumes zwischen Oberfl/iche und Grundwasser. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplement- band 25:242-306.

Schwoerbel, J. 1967. Das hyporheische interstitial als Grenzbiotop zwischen oberirdischem und subterranem Okosystem und seine Bedeutung ftir die Prim/Jr-Evolution vo Kleinsth6hlen- beworhnern. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, Supplementband 33:1-62.

Sherberger, E E, and J. B. Wallace. 1971. Larvae of the southerastern species of Mollana. Jour- nal of the Kansas Entomological Society 44:217-224.

Shiozawa, D. K. 1986. The seasonal community structure and drift of microcrustaceans in Val- ley Creek, Minnesota. Canadian Journal of Zoology 64:1655-1664.

Shiozawa, D. K. 1991. Microcrustacea from the benthos of nine Minnesota streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:286-299.

Shofner, M. A. 1999. Predation, habitat patchiness, and prey exchange: Interactions between stream meiofauna and juvenile fish. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Shofner, M. A., and M. A. Palmer. 1997. Predation risk and prey exchange across patch types: Interactions between juvenile fish and meiofauna. Bulletin of the North American Ben- thological Society 14:136.

Stanko-mishic, S., J. K. Cooper, and P. Silver. 1999. Manipulation of habitat quality and effects on chironomid life history traits. Freshwater Biology 41:1-9.

Strayer, D. 1985. The benthic micrometazoans of Mirror lake, New Hampshire. Archiv fiir Hy- drobiologie, Supplementband 72:287-426.

Strayer, D. 1986. The size structure of a lacustrine zoobenthic community. Oecologia 69:513- 516.

Strayer, D. L. 1988a. Crustaceans and mites (Acari) from hyporheic and other underground waters in southeastern New York. Stygologia 4:192-207.

Strayer, D.L. 1988b. New and rare copepods (Cyclopoida and Harpacticoida) from freshwater interstitial habitats in southeastern New York. Stygologia 4:279-291.


Strayer, D. L. 1991. Perspectives on the size structure of lacustrine zoobenthos, its causes, and its consequences. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 10:210-221.

Strayer, D.L. 1994a. Body size and abundance of benthic animals in Mirror Lake, New Hamp- shire. Freshwater Biology 32:83-90.

Strayer, D. L. 1994b. Limits to biological distributions in groundwater. In "Groundwater Ecol- ogy" (J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol, and J. A. Stanford, eds.), pp. 287-310. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Strayer, D. L., and E. B. Bannon-O'Donnell. 1988. Aquatic microannelids (Oligochaeta and Aphanoneura) of underground waters of southeastern New York. American Midland Nat- uralist 119:327- 335.

Strayer, D. L., and E. B. O'Donnell. 1992. The hyporheic nematode community of some streams in southeastern New York State, U.S.A. Stygologia 7:143-148.

Strayer, D. L., D. R. Nelson, and E. B. O'Donnell. 1994. Tardigrades from shallow groundwaters in southeastern New York, with the first record of Thulinia from North America. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society 113:325-332.

Strommer, J. L., and L. A. Smock. 1989. Vertical distribution and abundances of invertebrates within the sandy substrate of a low-gradient headwater stream. Freshwater Biology 22:263-274.

Swan, C. M. 1997. Heterogeneity in patch quality: Microbialninvertebrate dynamics in a sandy bottom stream. Master's Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

Tenore, K. R., J. H. Tietjen, and J. H. Lee. 1977. Effect of meiofauna on incorporation of aged eelgrass, Zostera marina, detritus by the polychaete Nephthys incisa. Journal of the Fish- eries Research Board of Canada 34:563-567.

Tietjen, J. H. 1980. Microbial-meiofaunal interrelationships: A review. In "Aquatic Microbial Ecology" (R. R. Colwell and J. Foster, eds.), pp. 130-140. University of Maryland Press, College Park.

Tokeshi, M. 1994. Community ecology and patchy freshwater habitats. In "Aquatic Ecology: Scale, Pattern and Process" (P. S. Giller, A. G. Hildrew and D. G Raffaelli, eds.), pp. 63- 90. Blackwell, Oxford.

Traunspurger, W., and C. Drews. 1996. Toxicity analysis of freshwater and marine sediments with meio- and macrobenthic organisms: A review. Hydrobiologia 328:215-261.

Turner, P.N., and M. A. Palmer. 1996. Notes on the species composition of the rotifer community inhabiting the interstitial sands of Goose Creek, Virginia with comments on habitat preferences. Quekett Journal of Microscopy 37:552-565.

Valett, H. M., S. G. Fisher, and E. H. Stanley. 1990. Physical and chemical characteristics of the hyporheic zone of a Sonoran Desert stream. Journal of the North American Benthologi- cal Society 9:201-215.

Vila, P. B. 1989. The occurrence and significance of Cladocera (Crustacea) in some streams of central Indiana. Hydrobiologia 171:201-214.

Vopel, K., J. Dehmlow, and G. Arlt. 1996. Vertical distribution of Cletocamptus confluencs (Copepoda, Harpacticoida) in relation to oxygen and sulphide microprofiles of a brack- ish water sulphuretum. Marine Ecology: Progress Series 141:129-137.

Wagner, H. P. 1994. A monographic review of the Thermosbaenacea. Zoologische Verhan- delingen 291:1-338.

Ward, G. M., and K. W. Cummins. 1979. Effects of food quality on growth of a stream detri- tivore. Paratendipes albimanus (Meigen) (Diptera: Chironomidae). Ecology 60:57-64.

Ward, J. A., and J. V. Stanford. 1993. An ecosystem perspective of alluvial rivers: Connectivity and the hyporheic corridor. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 12:48- 60.

Ward, J. V., and M. A. Palmer. 1994. Distribution patterns of interstitial freshwater meiofauna over a range of spatial scales, with emphasis on alluvial river-aquifer systems. Hydrobi- ologia 287:147-156.

336 I-lakenkamp and Palmer

Ward, J. V., and N. J. Voelz. 1990. Gradient analysis of interstitial meiofauna along a longitu- dinal stream profile. Stygologia 5:93-100.

Ward, J.V., and N. J. Voelz. 1994. Groundwater fauna of the South Platte System, Colorado. In "Groundwater Ecology" (J. Gibert, D. L. Danielopol, and J. A. Stanford, eds.), pp. 391-421. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

Warwick, R. M. 1984. Species size distributions in marine benthic communities. Oecologia 61:32-41.

Warwick, R. M. 1989. The role of meiofauna in the marine ecosystem: evolutionary considerations. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology 96:229-241.

Warwick, R. M. 1993. Environmental impact studies on marine communities: Pragmatical considerations. Australian Journal of Ecology 18:63-80.

Whitman, R. L., and W. J. Clark. 1984. Ecological studies of the sand-dwelling community of an east Texas stream. Freshwater Invertebrate Biology 3:59-79.

Williams, D. D. 1984. The hyporheic zone as habitat for aquatic insects and associated arthro- pods. In "The Ecology of Aquatic Insects" (V. H. Resh and D. M. Rosenberg, eds.), pp. 430-455. Praeger, New York.

Williams, D. D. 1989. Towards a biological and chemical definition of the hyporheic zone in two Canadian rivers. Freshwater Biology 22:189-208.

Williams, D. D. 1993. Nutrient and flow vector dynamics at the hyporheic/groundwater interface and their effects on the interstitial fauna. Hydrobiologia 251:185-198.

Williams, D. D., and H. B. N. Hynes. 1974. The occurrence of benthos deep in the substratum of a stream. Freshwater Biology 4:233-256.

Wolz, E. R., and D. K. Shiozawa. 1995. Soft sediment benthic macroinvertebrate communities of the Green River at the Ouray National Wildlife Refuge, Uintah County, Utah. Great Basin Naturalist 55:213-224.